The Fertility Gap

I've discussed in previous posts how the Democrats lack of breeding (the reproduction kind, not necessarily the class kind) may condemn then to being a permanent minority. (Read here about the baby gap, and here about the Roe effect.) USA Today has an article which tends to back that up:

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco, has fewer children in her district than any other member of Congress: 87,727.

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children: 278,398.

These two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide between the congressional districts controlled by the major political parties.

Republican House members overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census Bureau data released last month...

Many Democrats represent areas that have many single people and relatively few children. Democratic districts that have large numbers of children tend to be predominantly Hispanic or, to a lesser extent, African-American.

This "fertility gap" is crucial to understanding the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Arthur Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University. These childbearing patterns shape divisions over issues such as welfare, education and child tax credits, he says.

"Both sides are very pro-kids. They just express it in different ways," Brooks says. "Republicans are congenial to traditional families, which is clearly the best way for kids to grow up. But there are some kids who don't have that advantage, and Democrats are very concerned with helping those kids."

That's where the USA Today story goes off the track. As I recall, there's one party which objects very vigorously to ending the life of a child before it starts, and that's the GOP. Could that be part of the reason that there are more kids in GOP districts? The article never addresses the abortion issue at all, and while that might be politically correct, the lack of that mention skews any other results they have.

Dems, on the other hand, seem to value marriage much less and value their own personal desires much more, thus adding to the effect of the fertility gap. They're just as fertile - they just choose a more selfish path in life and that's going to result in less interest in children.

While I have no doubt that those Dems who have had kids are very much "pro-kids", at least in terms of the ones they've kept, you certainly can't make the sweeping generalization that the party as a whole is "pro-kids". A whole lot of the party prefers to get rid of those pesky pregnancies and occur at inconvenient times or in inconvenient situations.

The article adds this:

Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts.

Why are poor districts overwhelmingly Democratic? Because the Dems have successfully convinced poor people that they cannot survive without Dem handouts, and if the evil GOP gets in power, all their aid will be cut off. Multi-generations of dependent people have resulted.

And, by rewarding single moms with higher welfare payments with each additional child, we've taken the penalty out of irresponsible behavior. Consequently, the poor stay poor and keep voting for Dems who promise them more and more to reward their bad habits.

As was explained in The Baby Gap, there will be many millions more potential GOP voters coming up. If the Dems want to catch up, they may have to stop killing so many of their kids.